Re: My (ongoing) analysis of the proposed modules

Hey there,

> I guess my main issue here is that these seem to be fairly weak pros for
> throwing away a tested (if imperfect) codebase. battstat has some
> issues, like mediocre ACPI support. It seems we're potentially throwing
> that out in favor of... poor/unknown ACPI support, in favor of...
> slightly simpler UI, and Yet Another Capplet, copying functionality from
> the xscreensaver capplet 99% of us already have.
> So, basically, the 'have a notion of power management beyond the battery
> applet' is a good idea, but it seems like we need much more testing and
> integration of this code base before we consider throwing out something
> that works, presenting us both with new testing issues and upgrade
> problems (as jeff mentions in his worms.) [Aside: maybe GEP 10 needs to
> explicitly say 'things replacing old, tested apps should face a higher
> standard of scrutiny'?]

Yeah, I'm willing to postpone this until it's more properly thought out.
FWIW, battfink uses exactly the same code as battstat for the ACPI
stuff, so it *should* be working the same. I think we could probably do
the 'Yet Another Capplet' discussion at GU4DEC though.

It would probably also be a good idea to try and sort out the
notification area guidelines in the meantime too, so we can bring some
sort of consistancy to everything that is using the feature.

> |zenity
> [lean towards yes until we actually have a sysadmin tools thing]
> Basically, it'd be a big regression if we nuke this functionality now.
> That would be a shame.

And a regression if someone doesn't stand up to write the compatibility
gdialog/zenity script thing. 

			See ya,
				Glynn ;)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]